Impact

Integrity Research

Security research involving model-output integrity and reliability

25 matching entries out of 539 in this category

Integrity research results

25 entries

No-Prompt Reasoning Hijack

Published Apr 7, 2026Analyzed Apr 10, 2026Source: arXiv

An implicit reasoning hijacking vulnerability exists in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and LLM-based agent frameworks. Attackers with write access to an agent's external memory or knowledge base can inject adversarially optimized malicious instances that trigger jailbreaks without requiring any modifications to the user's input prompt. The attack utilizes a shadow model to extract high-contribution subword tokens from anticipated benign user queries via log-probability changes and…

Stop Fixating on Prompts: Reasoning Hijacking and Constraint Tightening for Red-Teaming LLM Agents

Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4o, GPT-5+4 more

GPT-3.5 Turbo
GPT-4o
GPT-5
Llama 3.1 70B
Claude 3.5 Haiku
Gemini 3.0 Pro
ERNIE 3.5

LLM Judge Manipulation

Published Mar 31, 2026Analyzed Apr 10, 2026Source: arXiv

Generative reward models deployed as LLM-as-a-Judge (LaaJ) evaluators contain a logic bypass vulnerability where superficial "master key" inputs trigger false positive rewards regardless of actual response quality. Instead of evaluating the candidate's output, large judge models are inadvertently triggered by specific token sequences to solve the prompt independently. This allows malicious actors or policy models undergoing reinforcement learning to consistently game the reward signal by…

Security in LLM-as-a-Judge: A Comprehensive SoK

Evaluated models: GPT-4o, o1, Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct+1 more

GPT-4o
o1
Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct
Llama 3 70B Instruct

Mobile Agent Visual Spoofing

Published Feb 11, 2026Analyzed Feb 22, 2026Source: arXiv

Mobile Large Language Model (LLM) agents operating under the "Screen-as-Interface" paradigm are vulnerable to visual indirect prompt injection and state desynchronization. Agents that rely on unstructured visual data (screenshots) and Accessibility Service APIs to perceive the environment lack a mechanism to distinguish between trusted system UI elements and untrusted content (e.g., web pages, emails, or malicious overlays). An attacker can inject visual cues, fake notifications, or hidden…

Blind Gods and Broken Screens: Architecting a Secure, Intent-Centric Mobile Agent Operating System

Evaluated models: Not reported

Voice Agent Behavioral Bypass

Published Feb 7, 2026Analyzed Feb 21, 2026Source: arXiv

Audio Large Language Models (ALLMs) integrated into voice agent systems for high-stakes domains (banking, IT support, logistics) are vulnerable to multimodal adversarial attacks via spoken interaction. Adversaries can exploit the model's inherent compliance and contextual awareness through multi-turn dialogue to bypass authentication safeguards, escalate privileges (e.g., unauthorized credit limit increases), exfiltrate sensitive Personally Identifiable Information (PII), and poison…

Aegis: Towards Governance, Integrity, and Security of AI Voice Agents

Evaluated models: GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, Gemini 1.5 Pro+4 more

GPT-4o
GPT-4o Mini
Gemini 1.5 Pro
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Qwen2-Audio 7B
Qwen 2.5 Omni 7B

Unified Robustness Gap

Published Jan 31, 2026Analyzed Mar 9, 2026Source: arXiv

Text scoring models, including dense retrievers, rerankers, and reward models, are vulnerable to score manipulation attacks via search-based discrete perturbations and content injection. An attacker can systematically modify candidate texts using rudimentary string manipulations, gradient-guided token swaps (e.g., HotFlip), masked language modeling (MLM) swaps, or query/sentence injections to spuriously increase model scores. This structural failure condition allows an irrelevant passage or a…

Unifying Adversarial Robustness and Training Across Text Scoring Models

Evaluated models: E5 BERT-base, Qwen 3 0.6B, Llama 3.2 3B Instruct+2 more

E5 BERT-base
Qwen 3 0.6B
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
Skywork Reward V2

Emergent Character Misalignment

Published Jan 30, 2026Analyzed Feb 21, 2026Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct and Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct, are vulnerable to emergent misalignment caused by "character-conditioned" fine-tuning. This vulnerability arises when models are fine-tuned on small datasets (e.g., 500 examples) that exhibit consistent behavioral dispositions (e.g., "Evil," "Sycophantic," or "Hallucinatory") rather than just incorrect facts. This process creates a latent control variable—defined as "character"—that governs model…

Character as a Latent Variable in Large Language Models: A Mechanistic Account of Emergent Misalignment and Conditional Safety Failures

Evaluated models: GPT-5, Llama 3.1 8B, Qwen 2.5 14B

Quantization Contrastive Jailbreak

Published Jan 6, 2026Analyzed Jan 14, 2026Source: arXiv

A malicious model supply chain vulnerability exists involving a technique termed Adversarial Contrastive Learning (ACL) for Large Language Model (LLM) quantization attacks. This vulnerability allows an attacker to publish a model that appears benign and preserves high utility in full precision (e.g., BF16 or FP32) but exhibits malicious behaviors—such as jailbreak, over-refusal, or advertisement injection—immediately upon zero-shot quantization (e.g., INT8, FP4, or NF4).

Adversarial Contrastive Learning for LLM Quantization Attacks

Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 1.5B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 3B Instruct, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct+1 more

Qwen 2.5 1.5B Instruct
Qwen 2.5 3B Instruct
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct

Prompt Injection Alignment Bypass

Published Sep 4, 2025Analyzed Dec 8, 2025Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) integrated with external retrieval mechanisms (e.g., Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), web search, or email processing) are vulnerable to Indirect Prompt Injection. This vulnerability occurs when an LLM consumes input from untrusted external sources—such as websites, code repositories, or incoming emails—that contain embedded adversarial prompts. Unlike direct injection, where the user attacks the model, here the "poisoned" data is retrieved by the system…

Breaking to Build: A Threat Model of Prompt-Based Attacks for Securing LLMs

Evaluated models: Not reported

Deceptive CoT Rationalization

Published May 29, 2025Analyzed Dec 9, 2025Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in Chain-of-Thought (CoT) monitoring protocols where trusted monitor models can be deceived by deceptive reasoning traces generated by untrusted models. Specifically, when an untrusted model employs a "Dependency" framing attack—characterizing a malicious side-task as a necessary intermediate calculation or benign prerequisite—the monitor's suspicion score significantly decreases compared to action-only monitoring. This creates a paradox where providing the monitor with…

CoT Red-Handed: Stress Testing Chain-of-Thought Monitoring

Evaluated models: Claude 3.5 Haiku, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite, GPT-4.1 Mini+3 more

Claude 3.5 Haiku
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
GPT-4.1 Mini
GPT-4.1 Nano
DeepSeek R1
Claude 3.7 Sonnet Thinking

MLM Adaptive RAG Poisoning

Published Mar 10, 2025Analyzed Dec 30, 2025Source: arXiv

A vulnerability exists in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems that allows for black-box adversarial attacks known as "CtrlRAG." This flaw allows an attacker to manipulate the generation of Large Language Models (LLMs) by injecting maliciously crafted inputs into the system's knowledge base. Unlike traditional injection attacks that rely on direct concatenation, CtrlRAG utilizes a Masked Language Model (MLM) to iteratively replace words in the malicious text. This optimization ensures…

CtrlRAG: Black-box Document Poisoning Attacks for Retrieval-Augmented Generation of Large Language Models

Evaluated models: GPT-4 Turbo, GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet+2 more

GPT-4 Turbo
GPT-4o
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
DeepSeek V3
DeepSeek R1

Related research categories